Icelantic Keeper vs Rossi S7 ?

[Mudfoot]

Anybody got some mileage on both these skis? I've got similar deals on both and am trying to decide which way to go. S7 has got a pin tail, but other than that they seem pretty similar in demensions and set up. I am interested in any significant personality differences. Any info will be appreciated. Thanx.

[BigLineSeeker]

The Keeper is lighter, stiffer and more stable. The S7 is easier to turn and floats better at lower speeds. The Keeper is definitely the way to go if you ski faster and more aggressively. I spent 80% of my days last season on the 189 Keepers and am really happy with them. They have a shortish turning radius, but they are not hooky. For me the Keeper is better hands down.

[Mudfoot]

In flexing the Keepers they seemed suprisingly soft in the tips and tails, but stiff underfoot. I take it that they do not have a noticable "hingey" feel when skiing variable conditions or transitions?

[TransplantedFromRMNP]

Never been on S7s. Skied Keepers last year in about all conditions, blower pow, dense pow, windbuff, groomers, corn, mank, slush, ice, chicken-heads, suncups- probably 40 days total. They rip, are stable and fast and carve well on hardpack. Stiff underfoot w good sidecut, makes any size turn w ease. They destroy chop and the rocker rules variable snow and crud. They make me ski faster than I have in years. Just eye-balling S7s and Keepers, seems to me like the S7s look much more pronounced in their rocker. Keeper's tips dont flop around very much IMO. Hope this helps. And the Parr graphics are the raddest out there!

[Mudfoot]

Thanks! You guys are giving me exactly the kind of info I am looking for. The S7s seem to have a lot of rocker, while Icelantic claims your weight on the Keepers makes the rocker kick up, which seems kind of strange. The fairly stiff mid-section combined with the really soft tips and tails gave me some pause. I prefer tip to tail even flexing skis and was afraid the Keepers would feel a little to "hingey", but is sounds like that is not the case.

[BigLineSeeker]

I never noticed a hingey feeling on my keepers. I am only 160lbs but ski aggressively and used to race so I spend most of my time on edge. Not once did I wish these skis were more rockered or stiffer/softer (this included 2 days of cat skiing and 1 day of heli last year, all 20" plus days). Very versatile ski with a nice rearward mounting position that took no warming up to for me. If you want something really floaty and easy to turn at slower speeds the S7 may be a better bet.

[MontuckyFried]

Just saw some new Keepers (as well as the rest of the Icelantic line) at my local shop yesterday. Really freaking tempting, as I was thinking of maybe replacing my Gotamas with the S7's, when the Keeper caught my eye. Love the elk topsheets. Seems like a good retail price, especially being that they're American made!

They also seemed really light weight, so perhaps a good ski for an AT setup?

[McScrundle]

Just saw some new Keepers (as well as the rest of the Icelantic line) at my local shop yesterday. Really freaking tempting, as I was thinking of maybe replacing my Gotamas with the S7's, when the Keeper caught my eye. Love the elk topsheets. Seems like a good retail price, especially being that they're American made!

They also seemed really light weight, so perhaps a good ski for an AT setup?

What year gotamas do you have? I'm trying to compare my 2008 176 goats to the 178 keepers by weight. Very close to pulling the trigger on them, but I definitely want something lighter than the gotamas to tour on.

[MontuckyFried]

What year gotamas do you have? I'm trying to compare my 2008 176 goats to the 178 keepers by weight. Very close to pulling the trigger on them, but I definitely want something lighter than the gotamas to tour on.

Mine are the 2010s. According to REI's website, the weight is 4,670 grams per pair, but I can't think that's quite accurate since it lists the same weight for every size available. Hmm. They list the Keepers as 4,672 grams per pair. I could've sworn the Keepers felt lighter, but I guess they're about the same after all. I didn't exactly compare the two side by side. FWIW, REI lists the S7's as being 4,480 grams.

[McScrundle]

Where the keepers mounted? I get to fondle some this weekend so I will get some hands on before I put down my money, but it would still be nice to compare numbers.

[Mudfoot]

Buyers' Tip:

The 2010-11 Keepers are identical to the new ones , except for the Elk topsheets. There are still some good deals to be found on last year's model (Hendrix-funk) on the net. My local shop had one pair each of 189s and 178s left, so a buddy and I made them a two pair offer and walked off with a screaming deal. They now have nothing but the new model on the rack at the 2011-2012 full price.

The Keepers have two mounting marks, one for alpine boot center marked BC, and one for tele mounting on cord center marked CC. They weigh in at over 10 lbs a pair, so not on the light side, but not bad considering their size and how burly they are. I believe they are heavier than S7s.

[BoatBound]

they are heavier and have much more camber. Don't forget they are a true 189 if not a mm or 2 longer.

[Mudfoot]

Thanks everyone for your input, which helped me pull the trigger on the Keepers. Skied them for the first time yesterday at Wolf Creek. With only one day on them I am not qualified to write a review yet, but at this point I am totally in awe of their abilities, versatility, and feel. Definitely the most fun skis I have ever been on. If you are considering getting a pair and have any reservations, I would say don't worry, they are a hell of a ski for carving to powder, and everything I could find inbetween. They really do make any turn shape you want without hesitation. I am going to blow off work Wednesday because I can't wait to get back on them. Made me feel like a rock star every run.

I am sure the S7 is a great ski too, but I can't imagine it would be significantly better than the Keepers.

[arild]

they are heavier and have much more camber. Don't forget they are a true 189 if not a mm or 2 longer.

The Keeper 189s actually measure 194cm tip to tail (material length). Very interesting ski, maybe a bit too much tail for my tastes.

[SupreChicken]

How about Keeper vs. S7 vs Bibby vs Bluehouse Maestro?

Any thoughts?

[Mudfoot]

Very interesting ski, maybe a bit too much tail for my tastes.

Arild:

Would you mind explaining this statement? Do you mean the tail is too long, too stiff, or too wide compared to the S7? MF

[MnO_____]

I normally like skis in the 185-190 range, but with the Keeper I prefer the 178 over the 189. The 178 sounds way to small and I didnt even consider it at first, but when I tried it, I found it to be one of the most fun skis of last year. I ended up buying a pair later actually, and now use it as a resort short tour ski. I really like the light, poppy feel in soft snow and the carving/playing abilities on hardpack. Also, the float is better than you would think with that small tip rocker and rather high camber.

I hoped that Icelantic could reduce the camber for this year, but they didn´t. There is just no use for camber in this category. A flat camber would make the ski even better in basically all conditions. Quicker edge to edge on groomers and harder snow, better float and easier turn initation. Don´t know what they thought that the camber should do, but probably they have the old view that camber brings pop and groomed ability. Time to drop that myth...

So, Icelantic. Bring me a flat camber Keeper for next year. And when you are at it, add a 184 to the line.

[arild]

Arild:

Would you mind explaining this statement? Do you mean the tail is too long, too stiff, or too wide compared to the S7? MF

Never skied them, just talking out of my ass, but I generally don´t like that much sidecut to begin with. Also never skied the S7s, and have no intention to do so.

[Mudfoot]

MnO:

You say, "I really like the light, poppy feel in soft snow and the carving/playing abilities on hardpack," but I think alot of that comes from the Keeper's camber. I have an old pair of Watea 101s (before they put the carbon I-beam in them) which have a similar flex pattern to the Keepers, but flat camber. I love them in the deep stuff, but they suck on hardpack and groomers.

One of the qualities I really liked about the Keepers is their unexpected ability to literally rip on the groomers. I think if they made them flat camber you would lose more on that end than you would gain in soft snow performance. It sounds like you would like the new Icelantic Gypsy.

MF

[MnO_____]

MnO:

You say, "I really like the light, poppy feel in soft snow and the carving/playing abilities on hardpack," but I think alot of that comes from the Keeper's camber. I have an old pair of Watea 101s (before they put the carbon I-beam in them) which have a similar flex pattern to the Keepers, but flat camber. I love them in the deep stuff, but they suck on hardpack and groomers.

One of the qualities I really liked about the Keepers is their unexpected ability to literally rip on the groomers. I think if they made them flat camber you would lose more on that end than you would gain in soft snow performance. It sounds like you would like the new Icelantic Gypsy.

MF

I´m not so sure that you are right in what you say. I feel like saying that you are wrong, but I don´t since I am not fully sure that I am right either. I leave it open for discussion and I think it´s a very interesting subject concerning ski designs.

Yes, I like the pop and playful feel of the Keeper, but I don´t think that it would feel that much difference in that sense with a flat camber. Actually I think they will be even better on the groomers without camber. Icelantic, and many with them, THINK that camber is something that is needed on groomed snow. I think that this is something that we can consider a conservative leftover from the past, atleast when we talk about wider skis. I am almost sure that if you would make a blind test, a slightly stiffened version with flat, or very, very slightly reversed camber would be considered better or atleast just as good on hardpack. It would be (even) quicker edge to edge, easier to initate in the turn, have the same carving ability, and maybe even the same pop. I think that most people would find that ski easier and more fun to ski, while still keeping the performance.

During the years, I have tried a lot of skis. Including the Wateas in several different year models, that are by the way outdated and not a good reference for anything nowadays, not even soft snow. Of all skis I have tried, the fat skis (>110mm) that I have found to be the best on groomed almost all had flat or full rocker. The only exception is RP112 that I really liked and that still have camber. The rest of my groomer favourites among the midfats? Rockered or flat. Katanas, Blizzard Flipcores, Downskis CD2, all Hendryx:es and Extrem's. I even remember when I went through 6-7 pairs of Salomon AK Rocket Swallowtails a few years ago and that was maybe what changed my mind. The pair that was the best of those was a pair that had almost all flat camber. The pair that was the worst had higher than normal camber. On groomers or offpiste didnt matter. The flat was better everywhere.

Pop, trackability, edge grip, playful feel, turn initiation, balance, edge-to-edge speed, snow contact feel and all the other parameters seems to either stay the same or get better with less camber. When you go past zero camber to reverse, the only negative thing that you will notice is a loss of stability when you go straight with flat skis, but how much time do you spend with flat skis in a day?

One of the clearest examples is the small company Hendryx skis, that makes skis that have some similarities with Icelantic. They have a line of midfat to fat skis that have gone from a normal positive camber to full reverse camber during the last yers. Their skis all have a lot of sidecut, just like Icelantic. If you try the 08/09 Purple Haze from Hendryx for example that ski has full traditional camber. The 09/10 model and later have a low, full rocker. Even if you just look at groomer performance, that ski became a lot better when camber was inverted.

And it´s the same in the whole line from Hendryx. The skis from Hendryx was good on the groomers before. But they went from being good to being god when they went to full rocker. Every time they arrive to a open ski test they meet people that connect rocker with soft snow or pow only skis. Every time the people walk away knowing that they were wrong after riding the skis. The current lineup is INSANE on groomers, nothing more, nothing less. Especially the 917-20 model, that is a just under 100mm and fully rockered GS racer with pure worldcup class construction. That ski beats even the best race stock skis for skiers that are used to riding wider skis. Anyone that tries that ski will forever change the view on the need for camber on wider skis. It´s not needed. Period.

The Gypsy looks good, yes, I agree. But its a bit to much BC-jib and center mounted for my taste.

[slcdawg]

Good to hear your mini-review. I'm considering the Keeper for my daily driver on the front range. Debating that or something with a skinnier (100-105) waist. Looking forward to hearing more as you get more days in.

[Mudfoot]

Good to hear your mini-review. I'm considering the Keeper for my daily driver on the front range. Debating that or something with a skinnier (100-105) waist. Looking forward to hearing more as you get more days in.

Just got back from another day on the Keepers at Wolf Creek. Lots more groomers this time, and a few bump runs, plus some good crud, and more powder. My lover affair continues. I have them flat mounted with Look Pivots and I cannot figure out how they carve so easily on hardpack. They seem quick edge to edge and will rail turns of any radius. Because of the tip rocker you need to push a little harder on the front end to carve on hard snow, but it was not a big deal. I have not had them on a really stiff surface of any kind yet because we have been blessed with lots of snow since I pulled them out, so the "hardpack" was not that hard

I kept reading in other peoples' reviews that they will make any radius turn you want from one to the next, and damn if it isn't true. Skiing the trees in deep snow I had more confidence than on any other ski I have ever been on. In the stiffer crud I needed to keep pressuring the tips because they wanted to rise up on top, but the rise and flex of the tips makes them very forgiving when running over terrain or snow irregularities, which leads to getting a little too relaxed sometimes.

I sought out some bumps today and was suprised how quickly they turned. They are big and not real light, but they must be balanced because they swing very easily. It was a weird sensation because they are so big in the front, but felt light in the bumps.

At 6'5" and 215 lbs. I am a big guy, so I have the weight to drive them. At high speed in the thicker crud they worked well, but I definitely needed to pay attention. The sharknose tips really keep them from hanging up in the heavy snow. The Keepers are so forgiving and playful that I was getting a little sloppy.

As much as I like them, I am not at the point (yet) that I would use then for a daily driver, unless you have new snow on a very regular basis. Hope that helps.

[SupreChicken]

Anyone out there who can compare Keepers to Maestros?

[SterlingSpikeDancer]

Good to hear your mini-review. I'm considering the Keeper for my daily driver on the front range. Debating that or something with a skinnier (100-105) waist. Looking forward to hearing more as you get more days in.

I use a 194 D-Sender for my daily driver. I will admit to looking for soft snow everywhere I can find it, but am pleased with their turning on groomers and they can deal with the bumps. I think that the Keeper is a similar dimension ski, and would think that it would perform similarly. NO experience there, just thinking. Basically, what I am saying, is go for the waist that is bigger (in the 110 range), you won't regret it, but you WOULD regret getting the skinnier skis at some point.

[Mudfoot]

After sleeping on it and rereading my posts, I confess that I am definitely suffering from "new ski syndrome." The Keeper is the first full rockered ski I have ever owned, so I do not have much of a basis for comparison, but I did find all the good things other reviewers said to be true. The Keepers were immediately easy to ski, and have a playful forgiving personality, at least for a guy my size. The combination of width, sharknose tips, 18 m sidecut on the 189s, soft tips and tails but pretty stiff underfoot, and fairly long length but not real high tip and tail rise work together well, although it seemed like a strange mix on paper. Unlike other rockered skis I have been on, the Keepers have a unified feel, as opposed to feeling like completely different skis when you are on the front, middle or back. I am certain there are better pure powder skis, but for a 119 waisted ski it is a suprisingly good all-around performer, and a delight in soft snow.